The other Iraq

[Ceyaotl]

http://www.theotheriraq.com/relationship.html

I enjoyed this site. The fact is it says we as America messed up by leaving them to Saddam years ago. That can be argued but I would just like to say that now is our chance to make the difference and this is proof that we are there making a difference and winning the war. there is much progress there and it is still Iraq. I think the title "The Other Iraq" is really meant to show that our media is not reporting all that it should to tell the truth of the progress there.

[grandpa]

http://www.theotheriraq.com/relationship.html
I enjoyed this site.
The fact is it says we as America messed up
by leaving them to Saddam years ago.

We didn't just leave them to him--we supported him.
That's hardly walking away from the place.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Support for Saddam from the US was a temporary situation; the US did not support him at the outset, opposed him during his alliance with the Soviets, supported him when he attacked Iran to oppose him again when he went for Kuwait.

[Ceyaotl]

We didn't just leave them to him--we supported him.
That's hardly walking away from the place.

Grandpa h.

We supported him by backing him with equipment and then supported Iran on the DL. We played them both to keep them shooting at one another. Saddam turned his anger on the Kurds. We then beat Saddam back in 91 and drew the no fly zone and have backed the Kurds since. We left them hanging in 91 but came back with the No Fly Zone. So we supported him when we needed him to destabilize Iran and well, he got out of control. The time line is important. So technically we have supported the Kurds from 92 to the present. How do you think we captured the north so fast? So you make it seem as though we supported him in his killing of the Kurds and that is not true. You attempt to demonize the US is obvious.

[Ceyaotl]

Support for Saddam from the US was a temporary situation; the US did not support him at the outset, opposed him during his alliance with the Soviets, supported him when he attacked Iran to oppose him again when he went for Kuwait.

Yes very true. The time lines in all this is very important.

[brien]

Support for Saddam from the US was a temporary situation; the US did not support him at the outset, opposed him during his alliance with the Soviets, supported him when he attacked Iran to oppose him again when he went for Kuwait.

Excellent points. The see saw of Iraq. Our foreign policy seems to be as unstable as the Saddam himself, doesn't it?

[Ceyaotl]

Excellent points. The see saw of Iraq. Our foreign policy seems to be as unstable as the Saddam himself, doesn't it?

Yes and no, it is as unpredictable as world events sometimes though. To move with every changing situation in the world the US policy should be versatile so as to serve our interest.

[RickSp]

There is something slightly crazy about the claim that the media is not reporting all the good things going on in Iraq. Security is sufficently bad in Iraq that most media types are in their hotels when not going to briefings in armed convoys in the Green Zone or they are embedded in the center of US troops deployed in the field. It is difficult to see how they can go out and report when they are afraid to move on the street. The inability of US or Iraqi forces to provide security says a lot.

If indeed the recent poll that suggested that 80% of all Iraqis were opposed to the occupation and that 45% thought attacks on US troops was justifed under certain circumstances, then it is likely that the media reporting may be far too favorable, not too negative.

[grandpa]

Support for Saddam from the US was a temporary situation;
the US did not support him at the outset, opposed
him during his alliance with the Soviets, supported him when
he attacked Iran to oppose him again when he went
for Kuwait.

Anything could be looked at as a temporary situation. That's not much of a rationale.
We didn't support a tyrant because we "had to do it."
We chose to do it, just like we choose to support Kuwait, which is not the greatest, shining beacon of freedom, either.

My greater point is, you don't protest the "socialists" and "commies" in the Soviet Union by mimicking their expansionist behavior and supporting dictators.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

We supported him by backing him with equipment and then
supported Iran on the DL.
We played them both to keep them shooting at one
another. Saddam turned his anger on the Kurds.

We also have extensive support for Turkey which has along history of persecuting Kurds.
The point is, Saddam went from being a trading partner to a full-fledged Adolf Hitler seemingly overnight.
That wouldn't likely happen to a government guided by principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Ir...the_combatants

So you make two suggestions here:
1. It's somehow noble to support a dictator because of our interests in Iran.
2. It was somehow moral to "keep them shooting at one another."

Yeah, those are both good ideas countries should try.
Sarcasm aside, there is the path of not supporting atrocities overseas and mainaining principles of genuine self-defense.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Yes very true. The time lines in all this is very important.

History is important, but it doesn't justify funding atrocities.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

There is something slightly crazy about the claim that the media is not reporting all the good things going on in Iraq. Security is sufficently bad in Iraq that most media types are in their hotels when not going to briefings in armed convoys in the Green Zone or they are embedded in the center of US troops deployed in the field. It is difficult to see how they can go out and report when they are afraid to move on the street. The inability of US or Iraqi forces to provide security says a lot.

If indeed the recent poll that suggested that 80% of all Iraqis were opposed to the occupation and that 45% thought attacks on US troops was justifed under certain circumstances, then it is likely that the media reporting may be far too favorable, not too negative.

Rick I think you are judging the security in all of Iraq based upon what you see in the Sunni Triangle around Bagdad and Falluja. Check out what is happening in Basra and southern Iraq. I may be mistaken but I think there is substantial improvements in the rebuilding of schools, the hospitals, government buildings, etc.

Perhaps we only see what the media shows us from around Bagdad. The violence makes for good copy in the living room on the evening news. The successful rebuilding of Iraq in the south is , well, boring. Why show bricklayers building schools and hospitals when you can show blood and guts in Bagdad. I would venture to speculate that most of the US and Iraqi casualties come from the Sunni Triangle because perhaps that is where the former Baathist Party is concentrated. They had their turn in power and are now hell bent upon doing anything they can from preventing the Shiites turn in ruling Iraq. Thus the car bombs and suicide bombers. Perhaps they are also scared to death that the new government will do to them that which they did to the Shiites when Saddam was in power?

Check out some of the reports on how many Iraqi brigades are functioning in the south. Check the reports of how many Iraqi soldiers are trained and participating in the security in the south. I don't know but perhaps you may be surprised.

Come to think about it, I haven't seen any reports on the networks originating from Basra or southern Iraq. I have heard some on the radio. Perhaps it makes for better copy to show violent trouble in the Sunni Triangle rather than non violent progress in the south around Basra? Interesting agenda, indeed.